2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

Hyundai and Kia keep getting better, more interesting, and closer to our COTY ideal. Same with a 109-year-old American brand that last won a trophy in 1979. This year, Buick fields its third consecutive finalist, the premium compact Verano. Small American cars, including the Ford Focus and the surprising Chevy Sonic — the first American-built subcompact since the 1970s — finally are world-class. Alternatively propelled cars include Volkswagen’s Passat diesel variant, the Lexus CT 200h, and Toyota Prius V hybrids, two electrics, and one plug-in electric. Nissan‘s Leaf, which wasn’t ready for COTY 2011, joins the Mitsubishi i MiEV. The luxurious Fisker Karma offers range-extending electric technology similar to our 2011 COTY Chevy Volt’s, at over twice the price. It may determine whether a small, independent company can make it in the 21st century, or whether the eponymous Fisker is another modern-day Tucker.

Three years after Wall Street’s meltdown, and two-and-a-half years after the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcies, we seem to be out of the woods. A New Normal challenges conventional wisdom. Automakers make money on small cars in a 13-million unit year. The industry is a rare bright spot for our economy.

New models with heavy marketing budgets sell well, explaining why automakers offered up 35 eligible models for our 2012 Car of the Year. There were 10 Americans, 10 Europeans, and 15 Asians, including four Koreans. We tested 55 cars, including variants.

COTY is not a comparison test. Each model is evaluated against our six criteria, though this year’s huge fleet provides compelling matchups, from Audi A7 versus Mercedes-Benz CLS to seven compacts in various segments; three subcompacts; two A-cars (Fiat 500, Scion iQ); and three sporty niche models, including the most fun-to-drive car with the best exhaust note, the Mini Coupe John Cooper Works .

Toyota Camry, Honda Civic, and Chrysler 300 return after ’07, ’06 and ’05 wins respectively, though only one is a finalist. A Camry competitor, the Volkswagen Passat, represents the inverse of One Ford. The North American-specific Passat is larger than its European variant, and successfully challenges another bit of conventional automotive wisdom: Universal global design is the only way to build commodity cars. Turn the page for our analysis of this year’s field.

THE CRITERIA

ADVANCEMENT IN DESIGN

Quality execution of exterior and interior styling; innovation in vehicle packaging; good selection and use of materials.

ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE

Integrity of total vehicle concept and execution, clever solutions to packaging, manufacturing and dynamics issues; use of cost-effective technologies that benefit the consumer.

Primary safety — the vehicle’s ability to help
the driver avoid a crash — as well as secondary safety measures that protect its occupants from harm during a crash.

VALUE

Price and equipment levels measured against those of vehicles in the same market segment.

INTENDED FUNCTION

How well the vehicle does the job its designers and product planners intended.

THE JUDGES

Angus Mackenzie

Editor-in-Chief

Edward Loh

Executive Editor

Scott Evans

Associate Editor

Rory Jurnecka

Associate Editor

Allyson Harwood

Associate Editor

Frank Markus

Technical Director

Todd Lassa

Detroit Editor

Carlos Lago

Associate Road Test Editor

Tom Gale

Guest Judge

Jim Hall

Guest Judge

Chris Theodore

Guest Judge

The numbers are staggering: 35 contenders, 55 including variants. Good thing we have the Hyundai/Kia Proving Ground near Mojave, California to assist in the filtering process. This state-of-the-art facility covers 4300 acres and has 10 test courses, plus more than 30,000 square feet of offices and workshops. Here, we run all the cars through the complete set of Motor Trend tests–acceleration, braking, figure eight

The closed environment enables consistent and repeatable testing at high limits. The aim of this first phase is to eliminate vehicles that obviously do not measure up to the six COTY criteria.

1. Skidpad:43 acres; length: 2950 feet; width: 1200 feet
Low elapsed time and high lateral g on our figure-eight course show how a chassis copes with the acceleration, braking, and turning typically experienced on a winding road. The test also provides a maximum lateral g number.

Standard 0-60-mph and quarter-mile acceleration runs are made in both directions to account for any wind and provide data for incremental acceleration times. Brake tests measure distance from 60-0 mph.

Smooth surface and long, constant-radius turns enable evaluation of engine noise and transmission shift quality under hard acceleration. High speeds test NVH suppression as well as high speed steering and stability.

5. Winding Road:Two lanes; 3.1 miles
A demanding combination of fast sweepers, decreasing-radius hairpins, a tight right-left switchback, and three manmade hills, this course tests power, braking, and chassis balance at the limit. Also good for evaluating stability control and anti-lock brake systems.

Ten cars made it to the second phase of the COTY evaluation process, which brought them away from the controlled environment of the Hyundai/Kia Proving Ground and onto real-world roads. We run a 28.5-mile road loop based out of Tehachapi, which straddles the 4064-foot pass in the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield to the west and Edwards Air Force Base to the east. We know how these 10 cars perform at the limits — the focus now is how they work in everyday driving conditions. Each judge drives each contender over the route, which includes stop/start city driving, open two-lane blacktop, a demanding canyon road, and freeway stretches, offering a good variety of surfaces and powertrain load conditions in a relatively compact loop. After all that, it’s time to debate, discuss, and decide the 2011 Car of the Year.

Broken pavement tests whether tire noise is adequately suppressed, and whether noise, vibration and harshness are transmitted through the suspension into the vehicle’s body structure.

3. Tehachapi-Willow Springs Road summit, 4844 feet

Sustained climb from 4014 feet then sustained descent to 4147 feet tests engine torque and transmission response under light throttle load while climbing and effectiveness of cruise control on descent.

Patched surface tests high-frequency, low-amplitude bump control while suspension and steering are loaded with cornering forces.

Rolling On

As you’d expect in such a large group of vehicles, a handful of the performances at Hyundai’s proving grounds proved to be, well, a handful. We singled out a few poor performers and con- tacted the experts at Tire Rack to see if specific ills can be cured.

MT: Can a different set of tires help vehicles (such as the Chrysler 200 or VW Beetle) that suffer from terminal understeer?

Tire Rack: During enthusiastic driving, lower-performance tires will typically emphasize a car’s traits, while higher-performing tires will raise its limits and help its balance.

Let’s compare dedicated winter tires and high-performance summer tires. The winter tire features a cold-weather compound molded into a tread pattern consisting of small, densely siped tread blocks. In max dry handling situations, steering input and high cornering loads will initiate tread block squirm, making it harder for the footprint to remain stable against the road.

At the other end of the spectrum, a high-performance summer tire has warmer-weather compound molded into large, stable tread blocks to reduce tread squirm and raise the tire’s limits and communication with the driver. Original-equipment all-season touring tires fit in between these.

Driving enthusiasts may want to increase front tire pressure, as well as set the front camber alignment to the most negative setting within the vehicle manufacturers’ range.

MT: Is it possible to improve the ride and handling of small fuel- and space-efficient, eco-friendly vehicles such as Mitsubishi’s i-MiEv and Scion‘s iQ?

Tire Rack: Driving range is a critical consideration for electric and fuel-efficient cars, so reducing tire rolling resistance is paramount.

Rolling resistance arises from a tire’s internal components being forced to stretch and rebound constantly as they cycle between their loaded (tread footprint flattened against the road) and unloaded states (where the tire returns to a round shape). The final contributor to tire rolling resistance is the tread’s interaction with the road.

The A6 continues on with its classic style, which received careful tailoring for 2012. The lines are as attractive as ever — the look clearly is that of the mid-level Audi sedan — and crisper than the previous generation. The new car is longer, wider, and taller, and rides on a nearly 3-inch-longer wheelbase.

A major change for 2012 is that the regular A6 is not available with a V-8. (If you want that engine, you’ll have to wait for the S6.) In the meantime, engine options are the 211-hp, 2.0-liter turbo four, or the 310-hp, 325-lb-ft supercharged direct-injection V-6 that powered our test car. With the new Audi’s weight reduction — courtesy of more aluminum in the body — the addition of 10 hp and 15 lb-ft to the 3.0T, and the change from a six- to an eight-speed automatic, the V-8 option wasn’t missed all that much. Editors praised the engine’s linear (and substantial) power, and noted that the A6 also felt light and nimble. Some viewed its handling as better than its sibling A7’s, and said the chassis was well-balanced.

According to industry sources, there were cost-cutting measures within the cabin, but between the excellent materials and beautiful design, it is hard to pinpoint exactly where the price savings took place. The interior also earned praise for its roomy seats, excellent stereo system, and cool features like the Google Maps-based navigation and onboard WiFi system.

While there was a lot to like about the sedan, it didn’t excel everywhere. The interior was pleasantly quiet, but that meant drivers heard wind noise and mechanical noise from the engine bay. Some judges felt the steering was nicely low-effort in parking lots, but too light when driving at speed.

This car represents a great step forward in engineering excellence, but it isn’t quite best in class. And while we like the A6’s elegant looks inside and out, we’re not thrilled with its too-conservative styling .

WE DON’T LIKE: Doesn’t handle as well as A6, and has a heftier price tag.

The A7 was a tough nut to crack. At face value, it looks like an A6 in an evening gown, but despite the similarities in appearance and on the spec sheet, we quickly found differences.

While the judges gushed about the A7’s style — many felt it does “four-door coupe” better than the Mercedes-Benz CLS — and its surprisingly powerful engine, the car struggled in other areas. It’s bigger and heavier than the A6, and it felt like it in the corners. Harwood succinctly summed it up as “less precise.” Combined with steering that, despite being an improvement over past Audis, was still lacking in feel, and a stiff ride Theodore characterized simply as “not luxurious,” the A7’s dynamics weren’t where we expected them to be.

Judges also took umbrage with some of the engineering compromises. Everyone liked the sleek roofline, but more than a few grumbled at the loss of rear-seat headroom that came with it. There were also mutterings about the inherent disadvantage of hanging the engine out over the front axle. In all, though, these were nits most judges felt were balanced by the car’s strengths.

And it has more than a few strengths. The supercharged V-6 engine, with its strong, linear pull and impressive 4.6-second 0-60-mph sprint, had many judges wondering if they’d miss a V-8. Praise was also heaped upon the quick-and-smooth eight-speed automatic and confidence-inspiring Quattro AWD. Judges also remarked on the beautiful wood trim, Google satellite map-enhanced nav, and massive cargo hold.

In the end, though, we struggled most with the question of value. True, in the Car of the Year contest, the vehicles are not in direct competition, but when the A6 parked in the next stall delivers slightly more in all categories (save style), it’s hard to make a case for the $10,000 premium attached to the A7. As Jurnecka put it, “The A7 is an emotional purchase, not a logical one.” While the A7 piqued our emotions, our logic couldn’t quite make the leap.

WE LIKE: Best-looking 6 Series we’ve seen since the original; V-8 packs a punch and makes the right sounds.

WE DON’T LIKE: Price tag; tiny rear seats.

It’s not easy judging COTY contenders, and BMW’s new 650i coupe and convertibles made our lives even more difficult. Why? Many of us were left to nitpick and struggle for logical arguments against this grandest of Grand Tourers.

Not many MT staffers were fans of the outgoing 6 Series, citing uninspiring driving dynamics and objectionable styling. But all that’s changed with the 2012 version, and it left us clamoring for superlatives.

Of particular mention was the 6’s new 4.4-liter, twin-turbocharged V-8 and its 450 lb-ft of glorious torque. Smooth and linear all the way through the rev range, the mighty engine impressed nearly all with its copious power. Our coupe tester featured the M-Sport package with adjustable chassis and steering settings, along with a six-speed manual transmission, which many praised for its solid throws, precise clutch takeup, and automated rev-matching throttle blips on downshifts. To our surprise, the slick and quick-shifting eight-speed automatic in the convertible brought faster accel runs, even with that car’s extra weight.

Still, nits were picked. Rear seat room — especially headroom — is abysmal, and the 650i’s steering, while precise, could offer a little more feel. Some were also less impressed with the car’s large, heavy feel on smaller roads.

Added all up, the 650i was tough to deny, but there were also concerns about value and efficiency. With both testers’ MSRPs well above $80K, it was hard to give top value marks even for such a niche luxury automobile. And with an mpg range from the mid-teens (city) to low 20s (highway), the 650i isn’t huge on efficiency, either. Couple that with a lack of groundbreaking features, and we had to search elsewhere for our 2012 Car of the Year.

Buick‘s 1961 Special earned a second chance at Car of the Year by adding the V-6 engine for 1962, and it won. We don’t do COTY that way anymore, so the 2012 Buick Verano must settle for a few second- and third-choice votes. Its glaring shortcoming, the 2.4-liter engine, should be cured when Buick adds a 2.0-liter turbo late in the model year, and GM’s new 190-horsepower, 2.5-liter four by ’13.

“The Verano is the rebirth of the Buick Special without the irritating benefit of the aluminum V-8 or the V-6,” Hall said. Markus added, “The 2.4 gets coarse under heavy throttle above 4000 rpm, though it’s probably OK for most luxury compact customers, and the manual shifting holds gears well past redline.” The EPA highway rating is no better than the V-6 Chrysler 300’s, though we achieved 25.2 mpg for the Buick and just 21.9 mpg for the Chrysler.

Aside from the engine, the car is a surprise — the good kind. “I love this interior,” Markus gushed. “Rich tones, nice materials, Jaguar-y seat design, fake wood cleverly positioned where you can’t scrutinize the grain, all on oblique surfaces.” No judge confused its sense of style with the old Buick Blandmobiles that targeted the geriatric set. “Interior details are extraordinary for design, color, and execution of grain and gloss,” Tom Gale added. Its exterior displays “excellent wheel-to-body relationship and great surface detail. Look at how the body-side line relates to the rear door and wheel opening.”

Probably quietest among the contenders, it also has a plush ride without annoying Roadmaster wallow. “This thing actually handles pretty well, I’m surprised to admit,” said Jurnecka. “Pretty composed on a winding road.”

What’s the large-compact’s role vis-a-vis the small-midsize Regal? The Verano is priced as a step up for mainstream midsize sedan owners willing to give up some rear seat space, and as a competitor to the Ford Focus Titanium and Acura TSX, if not the Audi A3.

It’s no secret Chevrolet has struggled in the small-car arena, and with bad memories of the Aveo, our judges didn’t expect much from its replacement. Boy, were we surprised.

“Aveo is dead — long live the Sonic,” Loh declared. Editors were blown away by the improvements. “Seams are tight, materials are rich, and controls are well-designed,” Loh continued. Markus dug the “twin gloveboxes and handsome, chic, intuitive dash layout,” while Jurnecka appreciated the low noise/vibration/harshness and quiet interior. Lago liked that it “feels large inside, far bigger than its exterior dimensions imply.” Lassa went so far as to suggest that Chevy‘s “interior quality, fit, and finish seem up to Volkswagen’s level.”

Possibly even more surprising than the Sonic’s quality were its driving dynamics. Though it understeered on the test track, on real-world roads, the Sonic charmed with its solid chassis, communicative steering, and quick responses. “Competent handler, with a bit of body roll, but it’s not half-bad going around bends,” Lago wrote. Both he and Markus praised the chassis control on bumpy roads and railroad crossings. The turbocharged engine also drew praise for its solid pull, even if a few editors wanted more top end.

It wasn’t all good news, though. Several editors complained about the car’s driveability, noting that the combination of a sensitive throttle and non-linear power delivery made it hard to row the gears smoothly. Others balked at the shifter itself, calling it “loose,” “rubbery,” and “vague.” The transmission was also dinged for its extra-long gearing, which forces you to downshift from sixth to third to find any real power. On the other hand, it helped return 28.3 mpg during our hard-driving test.

The Sonic is almost unquestionably the best subcompact Chevrolet has ever built. “Punches above its weight class,” Loh concluded. Judged against the criteria, though, the Sonic delivers a solid triple rather than a home run.

WE LIKE: Vastly improved, and the new styling makes it more appealing.

WE DON’T LIKE: V-6 is too much motor for this car; transmission is slow; suspension is soft.

It’s one thing to be given a blank slate and told to make a car. It’s a completely different thing when you’re given an existing vehicle, on a very dated platform, and told to update and improve it. But that’s exactly what the folks at Chrysler have done with the 2012 Chrysler 200.

Without the ability to make major changes, the engineers retooled the hood, front fascia, and fenders, softening the lines. Chrysler added an S trim for the 200, which gives you 18-inch wheels, suede inserts, a wider track, and better tires.

The interior now has soft touch materials for a higher-end look and feel, but it’s still not class contending. Cost restraints also mean the 200 doesn’t get the new HVAC/nav/stereo interface the 300 and Durango get.

The V-6 brings the power, but this won’t be Chrysler’s volume engine — the 2.4-liter, 173-hp I-4 will be. Asking that little engine to haul around the 200’s almost 2 tons will be a tough task. The flipside is the new Pentastar might be too much.We’re used to torque steer in front-drive cars, but the 200 went beyond that, introducing us to multidirectional torque steer.

The engine has added some potency to the 200, and the new suspension makes the ride better, but the driving dynamics still let the car down. It’s an impressive feat to make a car that rides rough and soft at the same time. Suspension is jarring on uneven pavement, yet the car rolls over on itself when cornering. Surprisingly, the convertible didn’t change driving characteristics much, even though it added 500 pounds to the total weight.

The 200 does a few things well, but nothing great, except providing lots of rear seat room. There is only so much polishing Chrysler could do, and in the end, the 200 is still an old, overweight car that’s begging for a new platform and a major overhaul.

“How old is this chassis again?” Kim Reynolds asked after lapping our figure-eight course. His surprise concerned the LX platform, which underpinned the 300 when it won Car of the Year in 2005. Its roots come from the days when Daimler had stake in Chrysler. Today? It’s still among the best in its class.

Yes, the 300 remains as alluring, striking, impressive, and value-rich as it was six years ago. Only now its V-6 model boasts an efficient and smart-shifting eight-speed automatic, and the SRT8 model corners as well as its 470 hp urges it forward. The lineup maintains the iconic styling, but evolves it masterfully. Said Gale, “The character line that starts in the fascia works in concert with the wheel-oriented forms, and the front and rear graphics and lamp details make a strong statement for the brand without abandoning equity from previous models.” And he should know, he designed the previous Chrysler 300.

On the engineering front, the eight-speed automatic, paired with the V-6, performs exceptionally. It is the best powertrain Chrysler has to offer, returning near imperceptible shifts at cruising speeds and 31 highway mpg. Our disappointment is the wait required for the transmission to come to C and SRT8 models (although the old five-speed is acceptable).

Disappointments are minor but exist nonetheless. The eight-speed’s shifter, a beautiful but direct copy of the A8’s, feels a bit clumsy, requiring too much concentration when pushing through the detents to find park. As nice as the optional leather package is, the faux wood transitions from beautiful to cheap under direct sunlight, and the push-activated front storage lid takes excessive effort. In the SRT8, we also noted a tendency to wander at very high speeds.

We remain impressed by how well the 300 carries on, such that it was one vote away from taking the calipers a second time. Ultimately, one other car fit the criteria better.

Chrysler 300

C

SRT8

BASE PRICE

$38,995

$49,025

PRICE (as tested)

$42,710

$54,460

POWER (SAE NET)

363 hp

470 hp

TORQUE (SAE NET)

394 lb-ft

470 lb-ft

ACCEL 0-60, MPH

5.8 sec

4.4 sec

QUARTER MILE

14.2 sec

12.8 sec

BRAKING 60-0, MPH

121 ft

110 ft

MT FIGURE EIGHT

27.1 sec

25.7 sec

EPA ECON (CITY/HWY)

16/25 mpg

14/23 mpg

MT FUEL ECONOMY

18.9 mpg

N/A

CONTENDER: CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY

By: Allyson Harwood

WE LIKE: High-quality, good-looking interior; smooth ride.

WE DON’T LIKE: High as-tested price, snug third row, not enough differentiation from Dodge.

Minivans have a bad rap. It’s safe to say that were it not for the “soccer mom” stigma, some of the people who buy crossovers and SUVs would actually buy minivans. It’s a question of getting what you want versus what you need. So how do minivan-makers win back SUV buyers? One way is to change the perception of minivans. That seems to be the angle Chrysler is taking with its Town & Country.

Changes to the tried-and-true van give it the features many prospective buyers would seek out in a sport/utility. The van received a dramatic refresh for 2011, including the addition of the company’s new 3.6-liter V-6 with a six-speed automatic, a combination that has the same fuel economy as the previous model’s best, with more horsepower and torque. The 2012 model receives the second part of the van redo, with an interior described in driver notes as “truly luxurious” and “now the equal of the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey.” Editors appreciated the leather seats, contrasting stitching, and brushed-aluminum accents, and that the interior was pleasantly quiet at 75 mph. The second row was more comfortable than in previous models, too. The van impressed on rough roads. Three vans participated in Car of the Year this year, and the Chrysler had the best ride on uneven surfaces. The interior can be reconfigured easily, and with the second and third rows stowed, provides a cavernous amount of space for gear.

There isn’t a huge amount of differentiation between the Chrysler and its Dodge kin, but where you feel it most is on twisty roads. The Town & Country’s suspension is softer, making the Dodge Grand Caravan more fun in tight turns. In addition to the lack of differentiation, there’s the question of value. This minivan cost more than $42,000 as tested, a price point somewhat shocking for a minivan. It certainly does a fine job as a people- and gear-hauler, and is more efficient now, but doesn’t advance the minivan category enough to take COTY honors.

Chrysler Town & Country Limited

BASE PRICE

$39,830

PRICE (as tested)

$42,595

POWER (SAE NET)

283 hp

TORQUE (SAE NET)

260 lb-ft

ACCEL 0-60, MPH

8.0 sec

QUARTER MILE

16.2 sec @ 87.0 mph

BRAKING 60-0, MPH

125 ft

MT FIGURE EIGHT

29.4 sec @ 0.55 g (avg)

EPA ECON (CITY/HWY)

17/25 mpg

CONTENDER: DODGE AVENGER

By: Scott Evans

WE LIKE: V-6 power, six-speed transmission, new interior.

WE DON’T LIKE: The rest of it.

The Dodge Avenger and its Chrysler twin are oddities in this year’s competition. Both are spit-and-polish updates of existing vehicles, and both are slated to be replaced with all-new, Fiat-based models in two years’ time. Why are they here, then? We felt both were updated sufficiently to warrant an invite.

Though the Avenger is the same basic vehicle it was before, it’s had substantial updates. The judges were impressed with the pulling power of the new V-6 and the smoothness of the six-speed automatic transmission. They also praised the improved ride quality, which received high marks for its comfort on broken pavement. Though its stylistic updates were less extreme than those of other new Dodge products, most judges said the looks were improved somewhat and the new interior was a drastic improvement.

Unfortunately, the praise ended there. As much as we like the Pentastar engine, most agreed it was too much for this car, and Lassa went so far as to call it “too good for this car.” Complaints were also lodged about torque steer and against the transmission, which, as Harwood noted, was “easily confused” when any performance driving was attempted. Markus complained that the electronic nannies were too intrusive and couldn’t be switched off, and several noted that the long brake pedal travel caused them to misjudge stopping distances.

While we concurred that the updated Avenger was an improvement, none considered it class-leading. Jurnecka called it “uninspired,” while Lassa wondered why the supposedly lower-tier Dodge’s model pricing actually lined up almost on top of its Chrysler twin offerings. Other judges were even less charitable, with Harwood opining that Dodge had brought it up to “nearly mediocre,” while Theodore quipped that “the effort as a whole does not even bring the vehicle up to the average of its segment.” If the judges can’t even make a case for a car in its class, it can’t be Car of the Year.

WE DON’T LIKE: Lack of headroom; how about a new transmission for R/T V-8?

Eight-speed automatic! Eight-speed automatic! Just take a look at the comments of testers who drove the Dodge Charger V-6 with the new eight-speed automatic, and it’s difficult to miss the enthusiasm for one of the most obvious issues rectified with the new Charger.

Loh called the Pentastar V-6/eight-speed automatic combination “something of a revelation,” but noted “it can clunk if you step on the gas forcefully and induce downshifts.” For the most part, though, the eight-speed is a monumental improvement on the five-speed it replaces. As Evans wrote, “The eight-speed finally lets it shine. The car feels so much faster and smoother now…love that it won’t auto upshift in manual mode.”

The Charger received one of the more substantial redesigns of all the recently redone Chrysler vehicles. Those who want a flashy “man car” might appreciate the black-on-black package (with shiny 20-inch black wheels) that Harwood described as “bad-ass.” The Charger’s interior is no longer a complete disappointment. Though some were underwhelmed by certain elements of the interior, this is a Dodge, not a Chrysler. Even so, the infotainment system and sporty cabin details got thumbs up.

For $1500 more than the V-6 model, the Charger R/T beckons with 370 hp and 395 lb-ft of torque. Despite its five-speed automatic transmission, it’s hard not to love this car.

“There might be a quicker lap in there, but it’s so darn hard to resist goofying the tail out,” commented Reynolds after figure-eight testing. “You can run from mid-corner through the exit with some drift going on.”

In the large-car segment, the new Dodge Charger fits its purpose well. This four-door has attitude to spare and manages an EPA-rated 31 mpg on the highway with the V-6. But when considered alongside some of the other well-regarded contenders, the Charger needs more than a redone interior and eight-speed transmission to grab the Car of the Year title.

This sort of thing hasn’t had credibility since the 1994 Renault Espace F1 concept. Family minivans tend to get chewed up and spat out. They do just about anything the average suburban family needs done while managing to embarrass the man of the house. That should be enough.

For 2012, the Pentastar V-6 — perfect for the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, and too good for the 200 and Avenger — replaces the minivan’s aged, wheezy 3.3- and 3.8-liter V-6s and the SOHC 4.0-liter. And Dodge has immensely improved the interior to world-class, while retaining its Stow-and-Go convenience. The second row is now more comfortable. The optional rear-seat Sirius TV is gone. Good — the kids can look out the windows for a change. There are also two new paint colors and new interior lighting. The interior looks like the Chrysler Town & Country‘s, except it has red stitching all over. The Chryslers get fancier to provide some differentiation between the popular and premium brands, and the base trim Town & Country is priced equal to the top-trim Caravan R/T.

Markus says the Man Van was more fun on Hyundai Proving Grounds’ winding track than the Avenger R/T contender. “Faint praise, albeit. Stability control is less intrusive, grip is descent, transmission seems better calibrated, and the shifter is an easy reach from the steering wheel for manual shifting.” Note that Markus was hauling neither things nor people when he autocrossed it. You can drive it like that when you’re alone, but you’re still driving a minivan. With its updates and upgrades, the Dodge remains one of the most competent minivans in the business, and that ought to be enough. But Man Van? Maybe try offering NFL color schemes with a Lombardi Trophy hood ornament?

“I can forgive just about every wrong the 500 makes simply because this car makes me smile,” wrote Lago. “The design is more than cute; it just brings a smile to your face,” noted Theodore. You couldn’t find a judge who didn’t think the Fiat was a good-looking car. We weren’t just enamored with the retro-chic styling. Even judges who weren’t impressed with the 500’s dynamics had to concede that the car possesses a natural charm that makes it fun to drive regardless of any faults. But while the little car won everyone over with its good looks and charming personality, we were put off by issues bubbling just below the surface.

Though none of us expected it to be a drag racer, most felt it could use some more power for freeway merges and the like. Markus dinged the five-speed manual for long shifter throws and poor pedal placement, while Jurnecka and Lago called the shifter “balky” and “sloppy.” The six-speed automatic was smooth, but made the car even slower and demonstrated decidely unsporting shift behavior. Transmission woes aside, judges were consistently underwhelmed with the Fiat’s handling, with several commenting on excessive body roll and dive. Theodore also complained of instability under hard braking.

There were other issues as well. Markus found a bit of weather stripping already excusing itself from the party, and noted the optional TomTom navigation unit plugged into the dash was flimsy and vibrated constantly. Theodore was unimpressed with the 500C’s semi-convertible top, which doesn’t operate above 60 mph and flapped around when operated at speed. The top was also marked down for blocking rear visibility when fully retracted. Then there were questions about the pricing, which many felt got too steep too quickly.

There was a lot to like about the Fiat 500, but as Harwood said, “I wanted to love this car. I was ready to love this car. Turns out I just like this car.”

Fiat 500

Sport

C Lounge

BASE PRICE

$16,000

$20,000

PRICE (as tested)

$19,700

$25,950

POWER (SAE NET)

101 hp

101 hp

TORQUE (SAE NET)

98 lb-ft

98 lb-ft

ACCEL 0-60, MPH

10.1 sec

11.4 sec

QUARTER MILE

17.5 sec

18.3 sec

BRAKING 60-0, MPH

128 ft

124 ft

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.4 sec

29.5 sec

EPA ECON (CITY/HWY)

30/38 mpg

27/32 mpg

CONTENDER: FISKER KARMA

By: Benson Kong

WE LIKE: Seduction embodied, and it’s an earnest effort from an American green startup.

WE DON’T LIKE: Too preproduction to attain a suitable assessment.

Can we offer a consolation prize for looking damn good? In spite of Fisker sending a stealthy, black Karma, its seductive arches and a slammed stance never failed to harvest attention anywhere this rolling testbed went.

When we say “testbed,” we actually mean it, as Fisker’s decision to even commit a Karma wasn’t made lightly. At the time of this writing, media access to the luxury extended-range electric vehicle has been very limited. But per our Car of the Year regimen, a Karma would need to be left in the desert with no special handlers or supervision. A preproduction tester was plucked from the engineering division. Kudos must be paid.

Hiding behind the slinky sheetmetal and bespoke 22-inch wheels is some of the most sumptuous leather and wood you’ll find in any interior today. The Karma is downright plump at 5408 pounds, though the dynamics were deemed decently sprightly. After poking around in the undercarriage, Theodore was confident the chassis and suspension was gestated properly, asserting the Karma should be “a relatively good value for what may be a limited-volume vehicle.”

But while Theodore liked what he saw beneath the car, every evaluator was inundated with the various and numerous preproduction quirks that crept up. The driver-side A-pillar trim piece came off, and some outer panels warped in the desert sun. We had to be conscious of where we rested our left arms — a sensitive door-release button was used in lieu of a handle, and a few editors inadvertently popped the driver’s door onto its catch while in motion. The term “kit car” circulated our notes freely.

The powertrain had its issues as well, on occasion lagging considerably when it needed to switch into extended-range mode. Truthfully, it would be unfair to continue harping on the Karma. Our particular model wasn’t ready to leave the nest, and thus gets to wait prettily until next time.

Ford‘s relaunch of the Focus has deja vu’d us back to the year 2000. At last, a real European compact bred for high speeds and great handling, made here — just like the original Focus!

Editor logbooks were filled with praise for the chassis: “Dynamically the Focus is second only to the phenomenal Mini,” proclaimed Theodore. “Possibly the best-handling car in its class,” echoed Lassa. “Steering is appreciably quick and direct — a lot more natural feeling than the Elantra’s,” said Loh. Reynolds countered that, on the figure eight, the Focus seemed “very underpowered for its tires” — underbraked, too, which caused him to miss his turn-in point a few times.

Comparisons with the Elantra kept popping up. “‘Kinetic’ design is similar to Hyundai’s ‘fluidic sculpture’ design, but less exaggerated,” opined Theodore. Many agreed with Gale that “the inside lets down the outside” from a design standpoint, with too much hard plastic and a gimmicky center stack that looked to Harwood “like the plastic got warped in the sun and is melting off the dash.”

Lassa wasn’t sold on the slightly boomy 2.0-liter, lamenting that “as with the Buick Verano, you have to wait for the money engine, which should be the 1.6-liter EcoBoost.” Also slated for improvement next year is the dry-plate twin-clutch automatic, which proved not quite ready for prime time in a recent comparo, demonstrating clunky behavior at low speeds and rather rough launches from rest. Nor did it seem to shift very quickly. Ford has acknowledged the problems and is at work correcting them, and hence understandably chose not to send along an example of this high-volume transmission.

Even with EcoBoost and a sorted tranny, noted Theodore, “the problem is that the Hyundai Elantra offers better content and interior finish at a lower price, which is critical for the typical consumer.”

When you look at something like the Civic, it’s difficult to evaluate it as one car. It’s really a family of cars. There are two body styles, a high-performance model, a hybrid, a natural-gas-powered car, and one that specializes in high fuel economy. That’s a very broad range of powertrain options — one that could appeal to a wide spectrum of drivers. Fortunately, Honda provided four of its variants for Car of the Year. We got to drive the hybrid, HF, and volume-seller EX-L sedans and the Si coupe.

On one hand, judges were instantly familiar with the Civic’s layout, controls, and styling. On the other hand, that indicates the all-new Civic isn’t a dramatic leap forward from the previous cars. As Jurnecka said, “This car doesn’t seem to have changed much either mechanically or cosmetically, but the bones are still good.”

Some judges were harsher than that, noting that, while styling updates were minor, the Civic showed the after-effects of cost-cutting. The two models with driving dynamics that impressed most were the Si — still funnish to drive, with wonderful handling — and the high-fuel-economy HF. But the EX-L sedan provided a ho-hum drive, offering no hints of the fire found in the Si. Drivers logged the EX-L had more wind noise than the Focus or Elantra, and that the engine had to rev to above 4000 rpm before there were any signs of life. The EX-L’s interior got positive comments, specifically for improved refinement, with features like gathered leather seats and an eye-catching pattern on the door trim.

There wasn’t a significant advancement in design here, and the sense of cost-cutting implies the value actually went down compared with the previous model. The Civic gets high marks for its impressive bandwidth and efficiency, but it felt more like a refresh than a new generation. Evans sums it up: “The Si is fun to drive. Too bad the rest of the model line is a letdown.”

During judging, a small argument erupted over customer expectations versus engineering capability. Some judges argued that customers buying A-to-B commuter cars don’t care how the car handles. Others argued that’s no excuse for not building the best car possible. The Accent falls somewhere in the middle.

We rather liked the Accent. It’s a pretty good-looking car inside and out. The interior packages reasonable passenger space front and rear with a surprisingly large cargo hold in a tidy exterior. It rides well on rough roads, and the chassis takes a decent set in the corners.

On the other hand, it’s got drawbacks. Despite a solid, predictable chassis, the Accent doesn’t handle transitions particularly well. Any aggressive driving is immediately met with heavy understeer as the car desperately tries to go where you’re pointing it, despite a lack of grip from its high-efficiency tires. The steering, although an improvement from Hyundais of old, still lacks in meaningful feedback from the road.

In general, judges walked away from the Accent with no strong feelings toward it. It just didn’t connect with them. Perhaps that’s because Hyundai’s recent leapfrog from also-ran to serious competitor in other segments has created an unreasonably high standard for its new models. Many judges remarked that the Accent came across as a strong competitor in its segment, but, as Theodore noted, “The difference in level of finish, materials, and content versus its competitors is not as great as with other Hyundai products, like the Sonata and Elantra — hence the value equation is not quite as compelling.”

It’s not that the Accent isn’t a good car. It’s that we’ve come to expect greater strides from Hyundai versus the competition. Perhaps our expectations were too high, but combined with the Accent’s conspicuous absence of a personality and handling abilities, the judges couldn’t find a reason to name it a finalist, much less Car of the Year.

WE LIKE: The stylish Elantra offers a ton of equipment for a budget-conscious price.

WE DON’T LIKE: Handling isn’t as sophisticated or supple as the competition’s.

COTY judge Theodore nailed it when he summed up Hyundai’s all-new Elantra: “If the Hyundai Elantra had the steering feel and vehicle dynamics of the Ford Focus, it would be the near-perfect C-segment car. As it is, the very high content and relatively low price will make it a great value for most consumers.”

Hyundai came out of the gates strong, impressing many with its successful transfer of its fluidic styling onto such a small vehicle, and an upscale, equipment-packed interior that felt more like a pricier midsize offering. “The Elantra has a better interior than Honda or Toyota have ever done in this segment,” praised MacKenzie.

We were also impressed with the Elantra’s packaging. Hyundai crammed plenty of rear-seat leg and shoulder room and a huge trunk into its little compact. Still, we found rear passenger headroom at a bit of a premium, especially for staffers taller than 6 feet.

Unfortunately, on the road the Elantra’s squeaky clean image began to crack. While most loved the Elantra’s 148-hp direct-injection 1.8-liter engine (paired to a six-speed manual gearbox), many didn’t love that achieving its claimed 40 mpg economy evidently required adhering to flashing advisories to skip third and fifth gears while accelerating, earning us just 30.5 in mixed driving. The Elantra’s chassis was also something of a letdown, feeling less controlled and less comfortable over uneven pavement.

The most universal complaint stemmed from the Elantra’s steering, a complaint we’ve had about previous Hyundais. Not only is effort far too light; feel is also lacking, and a certain artificiality seems built in to the system. While many staffers agreed that the average C-segment buyer might find these complaints minor (or even not notice them at all), they are faults nonetheless, and weigh heavily on engineering excellence —
a major COTY criteria.

The all-new Veloster is quite a departure from what we expect from Hyundai. The three-door hatch’s styling is unlike anything we’ve ever seen from this manufacturer. And we were eager to find out if the Veloster’s performance could live up to its look.

The answer? Kind of. The Veloster screams performance, but only moderately delivers. The engine is labored, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone, given that the 2012 Veloster only has a 138-hp, 1.6-liter I-4 under the hood. As Evans put it, “Needs a turbo STAT.”

The only time you approach any kind of fun is if you’re near the limiter. On flat, smooth surfaces, the Veloster feels quite good, especially if there are curves and turns. But on a choppy road, it dances more than it should, sending every bump and imperfection through each wheel — including the steering wheel. Said steering also leaves something to be desired. Theodore commented, “As with all Hyundais, the steering is light, non-linear, and uncommunicative.”

The interior, on the other hand, is exactly what we have come to expect from Hyundai, with comfortable, supportive seats and a content-laden layout that’s stylish and easy to use. There’s even a backup camera.

With the Veloster, Hyundai has introduced a modern three-door vehicle with asymmetrical driver and passenger doors. The different doors require different B-pillars for each respective side, which makes for a unique look, which comes at a price. A few editors noted problems with the Veloster’s left shoulder rear visibility.

Hyundai has gotten very good at delivering bang for the buck, and the Veloster is a perfect example. When Hyundai gives it the engine it desperately needs and tunes the suspension to deliver the sportiness the exterior suggests, this will be the hottest pocket-rocket in the segment.

This year’s all-new Rio, available as a sedan or a four-door hatch, has a revised look with more edge and attitude. It’s based on the same platform as the Hyundai Accent, but is very different visually from the scaled-down Elantra looks of its platform-mate. This is the best-looking Rio ever, a far cry from the rental-car face of the first two gens. The platform has a longer wheelbase, and the hatch — the Rio5 replacement — is wider and longer, and sits lower than before.

Its direct-injected 1.6-liter provides 138 hp, up from 110 in 2011, and 16 lb-ft more torque. While a six-speed manual is offered with the base model, our EX tester came with the six-speed automatic. Zero-to-60 times improved by 0.5 second compared with the last Kia Rio5 we tested. Not only that, but fuel economy improved, too: For 2012, the Rio hatchback achieves 30 mpg city, 40 highway, compared with the 2011 Rio5’s 27 and 36.

Tester comments ranged from the lukewarm “not bad, but not great” to “peppy” and “power is good for its class.” The six-speed automatic was a huge step up from the 2011’s four-speed. The Rio felt stable at higher speeds, and had sportier handling than expected. It’s fun in turns, but there’s no shortage of tire squeal.

There are typical subcompact downsides here, such as engine noise, hard seats, and a rough ride on choppy roads. However, the Rio has a spacious, cool-looking cabin, and a roomy cargo area. It also provides a lot of value, starting at just over $14,000, with our EX hatch’s base at $17,250. Ours included the feature-heavy convenience package for $1000. Six airbags are standard, as are four-wheel disc brakes with ABS, stability control, hill-start assist, and tire-pressure monitoring.

The Rio hatchback offers plenty of value and safety for the money, gets good fuel economy, and is certainly a competent subcompact with great looks. While it excels in many of the Car of the Year criteria, it falls a bit short in engineering and performance, so it isn’t this year’s winner.

Lexus has tried this before — and it didn’t work. Two years ago, we examined a Lexus-branded small sedan powered by a derivative of the Camry Hybrid’s drivetrain. The problem was, not many people seemed to know there was such a thing as a Camry Hybrid and concluded that it was based on the Prius’ hardware. They consequently balked at the bland-looking HS 250h’s sub-Prius mileage and super-Prius price (trying to explain the clumsy name at dinner parties probably didn’t help, either). We suspect, however, that Lexus is going to have much better luck with the similarly conceived, but far differently executed, CT 200h.

This time, the name avoids any awkwardly repeated letters: CT coherently stands for compact tourer, the 200 for the 2-liter displacement that its 1.8-liter engine simulates when paired with an electric motor, and the h denotes hybrid. And by actually having a Prius-based drivetrain, there should be no confusion on that point. But what’s possibly most important of all is that, unlike the HS, the CT 200h makes a vital visual impact. Maybe you like it, maybe you don’t, but its appearance sticks like glue in your memory. In particular, its rear — where many two-box designs wind up looking like vanilla-class hatchbacks, the CT’s stern is boldly complex with far more upscale detailing.

While a few among our judging panel thought the CT’s dash looked as if it had been rushed a bit, most were impressed by its Lexus-caliber materials and nifty rising electronic display. And with a more sophisticated suspension than the Prius’ (with a goodly dose of European-influenced tuning), the CT handles miles better than Toyota‘s economy champ. Gone are the Prius’ occasional wallows and uncertain steering, replaced by a controlled ride and taut turn-in.

So even if the CT isn’t Motor Trend’s Car of the Year, Lexus still just might have found the small hybrid entry it’s been angling for all these years.

Mercedes-Benz’s C-Class offers one of the largest spreads of any model range. From four-door, entry-level luxury sedan to barnstorming, tire-smoking premium sport coupe, the C-Class has the market covered. While that may not be a tremendous surprise in itself, it is a surprise that all these variants are quite good.

The new C250 sedan utilizes Mercedes’ new 201-hp turbocharged, 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine mated to the familiar 7Gtronic automatic transmission, and most judges were surprised at how quickly this combo was able to hustle our 3500-pound sedan up to speed. It felt even quicker than its 7.2-second 0-60-mph sprint would suggest. Some complained about slight turbo lag and a peaky nature that made the C250 a little more difficult to drive smoothly than its six-cylinder coupe sibling equipped with roughly the same transmission (the inclusion of paddle shifters could help here), but nearly all testers preferred the sedan’s lighter, more balanced handling.

As expected, the C63 Coupe proved the hooligan of the group, offering E-ticket thrill rides around our winding road course and garnering no shortage of compliments. “Wow!” exclaimed Theodore after a quick loop in the coupe. “Maybe they should change AMG to OMG. I believe this will be considered a collector car many years from now, as it is a high-water mark for AMG.” High praise, indeed.

While some were unimpressed by the somewhat simple interior (“Very businesslike,” complained Markus. “No fun or frivolity.”), others took solace in the clean, uncluttered design.

At the end of the day, the C-Class proved a worthy all-arounder, but few judgers were able to give it top marks in any given category, and the value provided by Mercedes’ entry-level offering was called into question. With as-tested prices ranging from a low of nearly $45,000 to a high of more than $81,000, the C-Class is still an expensive automobile.

WE DON’T LIKE: Questionable styling, dated interior, handles like an old musclecar.

As our friends across town in the music business will tell you, the hard part isn’t making a hit album — it’s the follow-up. When the original CLS-Class burst onto the scene six years ago, it knocked the luxury segment on its ear and sent competitors scrambling to build their own “four-door coupes.” The follow-up, though, is facing a much tougher crowd, one that can’t decide whether to love it or hate it.

Judges were conflicted on the CLS, both with themselves and with others. Some found it a striking car with a strong presence. Others pointed to the elaborate headlights and “pontoon” lines on the rear fenders in criticizing the car as overwrought and not as good-looking as the Audi A7 that is after its throne.

Opinions were similarly divided on the CLS’ performance. While the incredible thrust from both the standard and AMG turbocharged V-8s had us giddy, there was disagreement on how the car put the power down. Most judges agreed that both the CLS550 and CLS63 AMG handled like vintage American musclecars, tending to barrel into corners with the front tires scrubbing, and then hanging tail out when you went to the throttle. While we had fun driving sideways, some were put off by the ham-fisted handling.

There were other quibbles as well. Several judges complained that the engine and transmission in the CLS550 didn’t play well together, with the transmission often confused about gear selection and reluctant to take commands from the paddles, though the AMG worked better. We also found the ride firm even in comfort mode, and many criticized the interior as less warm and luxurious than Mercedes is known for, ceding ground to the competition.

There’s no mistaking the CLS-Class’ intended function; it’s not a complicated or subtle car. It is, as Loh put it, a “quiet, comfy, super-cruiser.” The CLS-Class makes no excuses for what it is. Admirable, but not a Car of the Year.

The new Mercedes-Benz SLK debuts with magic. Well, with Magic Sky Control. The technology is the latest in a series of drop-top advances from the German automaker in the last 10 years. First, we saw the Airscarf air vents integrated into the last-gen SLK’s headrests, then the trick air splitter appeared on the E-Class cabriolet.

Now, we’ve got Magic, the system that can change the SLK roof panel from transparent to a darker setting that reminded one staffer of the light after dusk. It’s a clever conversation piece mounted to a car that’s much improved, dynamically, from its less masculine predecessor.

With the direct-injection 3.5-liter V-6, the SLK350 accelerates from zero to 60 mph in just 5.1 seconds and still manages impressive EPA fuel economy estimates of 20/29 mpg city/highway, a jump of 1 and 4 mpg on the city and highway, respectively, from the 2011 model.

The SLK350’s tighter feel was noted by more than one judge, but there was a hiccup during testing.

“The tail will step out, but then so will the power steering,” Loh
said. “It’s unconscionable that the power steering should fail; quite dangerous, too.”

At Rodeo Drive speeds, the SLK’s revised — and polarizing — styling comes into focus. Mercedes clearly took inspiration for the SLK from the SLS AMG, just as the last-gen SLK had design cues from the SLR. From the huge grille to the SLS-inspired air vents, the new SLK has flair.

Yes, the SLK is a much-improved hardtop roadster, though let’s not forget the SLK350’s mid-$50,000 base price. Our better-equipped tester nearly hit $70,000, which will also buy a decently optioned E350 convertible. That comparison caught one driver’s attention. “It’s neither a sports car nor a luxury car,” noted Theodore. “Get a proper E-Class convertible if you want an open-air experience.”

There’s genuine goodness in the new SLK350, but it will need a bit more magic to earn COTY calipers.

From every vantage, the Mini Cooper Coupe says, “Come at me, bro.” Designed like (or by) a backward-hat-wearing teenage thug, the smallish two-seater burbles under idle, backfires under deceleration, tugs relentlessly at its steering wheel, and lift-throttle oversteers its way into your heart. It does the last so much that we’d half expect it to wear out its rear tires before the fronts.

The John Cooper Works edition we tested may be the most entertaining Mini ever. Narrowly focused on being the most visceral of the lineup, the JCW adds to the standard Coupe more power, aggressive bumpers, 17-inch wheels, and a hefty starting price. How hefty? Try $9900 more than a base Coupe and $6600 more than the S model — the one we recommend starting with. Then there’s the option list: Our JCW totaled $38,350.

Value then remains a tough sell. But so is the Coupe’s single-mindedness. While we admire its tenacity at entering corners so neutrally that you have to look out the side windows to see where the road goes, this focus creates a polarizing car. Few of us were pleased by its reversed silver helmet, and our opinions split on the interior, with its dinner plate-size speedometer and heavily styled toggle switches. It’s an interior you either enjoy for its uniqueness (Theodore: “The most entertaining speedo and tachometer cluster I’ve ever seen”) or despise for its caricaturized extremes (Jurnecka: “Lots of the same Mini design flaws”).

Beyond the styling, the JCW’s wanton aggression carries significant driveability penalties. Beyond the rough, stiffly dampened ride, the turbo 1.6-liter mill drones under cruising speeds, though it sounds fantastic under heavy throttle. The steering wheel falls victim to the engine’s impressive torque and road imperfections. The Coupe is a busy car at the limit; you finish a hard drive tired and sweating.

We do commend Mini for making a car that actively attempts to excite its driver, even if it sometimes works too hard. Now about that price…

Mini Cooper Coupe John Cooper Works

BASE PRICE RANGE

$31,900

PRICE (as tested)

$38,350

POWER (SAE NET)

208 hp

TORQUE (SAE NET)

192 lb-ft

ACCEL 0-60, MPH

6.2 sec

QUARTER MILE

14.6 sec @ 97.5 mph

BRAKING 60-0, MPH

110 ft

MT FIGURE EIGHT

26.2 sec @ 0.69 g (avg)

EPA ECON (CITY/HWY)

25/33 mpg

CONTENDER: MITSUBISHI i MiEV

By: Zach Gale

WE LIKE: Good visibility, never visiting a gas station again, cheaper than competitors.

When the second-generation Honda Insight debuted, it instantly became the least-expensive hybrid available in the U.S., undercutting the Toyota Prius by a significant margin. That wasn’t enough to transform the Honda into a sales success story, and we can’t help but see similarities with the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi i MiEV. Both cars are fully electric and the Mitsubishi is the least expensive electric car you can buy in the U.S, but we suspect that the i MiEV may be bound for niche sales.

For first adopters on a budget who understand the i MiEV’s strengths and weaknesses, the Mitsubishi could be a good bet. Before running out of juice, the i MiEV is EPA-rated for 62 miles of travel, and 126/99 mpg-equivalent city/highway. The Leaf doesn’t do as well by the EPA’s mpg-equivalent standards, mustering 106/92 mpg-equivalent city/highway, but the official range rating is 73 miles. The i MiEV, however, has additional limitations.

“This is more golf cart than go-kart,” opined Harwood. “Its motor is fine for driving around town, but I wouldn’t feel all that comfortable on the freeway in this thing.”

Acceleration from 0 to 60 mph comes in 13.4 seconds, but the i MiEV feels quicker. We’d stay away from highways in the electric Mitsubishi, and it’d be best to avoid winding roads as well. Handling limits are very low. “I thought I knew understeer,” Evans said. “Now I know understeer. No real handling dynamics to speak of.”

Not everyone who drove the i MiEV was disappointed. “It has that planted, battery pack in the floor feel,” Loh said. “Can see this as a city or beach community car. Not nearly as tinny or cheap as the Scion iQ.”

For people with the right set of expectations, the i MiEV could serve as a tailpipe emissions-free urban runabout, especially for those who have small garages or parking spaces. The Car of the Year title, though, is out of range.

When is a car…actually a car? That debate got sometimes, ah, pointed as our staff struggled with the Leaf’s restricted driving range between chargings (in our experience, around 75 miles.) Although that’s comfortably beyond the daily distance most people typically commute, it’s clearly a big limitation in sprawling metropolitan areas. Moreover, it’s almost a philosophical issue. Since the time of the Model T, the automobile has always winked with the eternal allure of letting you just take off in a direction — pick one — and, via quick fill-ups, keep on going until you eventually plunge into an ocean. We never actually do this, of course, but we sure need that possibility.

After a bit of head-scratching (“Second Car of the Year?”), we — or at least most of us — finally agreed that the Leaf is simply another car with a carefully defined mission, similar to a sports car or a pickup truck.

And how well does the Leaf succeed at its intended purpose?

Terrifically. Nissan has done a spectacular job in creating what’s frankly the world’s first quasi-affordable, smooth-riding, solid, quiet, comfortable, and well-made electric commuter car. Indeed, as we speak, the Leaf’s mere appearance on the market is ruthlessly erasing lesser EV competitors. There were superlative comments galore: “Quiet on the road, decent wind noise, ultra-quick off the line, and surprisingly nimble,” wrote Febbo. And from Zach Gale, “It feels like a real car and is one generation and a sport model away from my seriously considering it as a replacement for my daily driver.”

So why isn’t it the 2012 Car of the Year? Despite its impressiveness, there were a few quibbles. Some felt it was a bit pricey. Others, that the info-display’s estimation of range is too unreliable, or they disliked its unusual styling. And, yep, a couple still couldn’t swallow that sacrifice of potentially endless driving (and there would have been more had Aerovironment not installed a pair of level 2 chargers for us at the Hyundai-Kia Proving Grounds).

Nissan Leaf SL

BASE PRICE

$38,100*

PRICE (as tested)

$38,325*

POWER (SAE NET)

107 hp

TORQUE (SAE NET)

207 lb-ft

ACCEL 0-60, MPH

9.6 sec

QUARTER MILE

17.3 sec @ 78.8 mph

BRAKING 60-0, MPH

129 ft

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.4 sec @ 0.57 g (avg)

EPA ECON (CITY/HWY)

106/92 mpge

MT FUEL ECONOMY

N/A

*Before federal /state tax credits

CONTENDER: NISSAN QUEST

By: Rory Jurnecka

WE LIKE: Interior is nicely trimmed and feels spacious, good ingress/egress to rear seats.

WE DON’T LIKE: Huge to drive, awkwardly styled — must minivans be this large?

Bigger isn’t always better. If you need proof, the all-new Nissan Quest is a good place to start. Right from the start, comments came pouring in about the Quest’s massive presence compared with the competition.

“Winner of the biggest box award!” exclaimed Theodore. “Hard to tell the Quest from Nissan’s NV commercial trucks,” said Lassa. “Not only the size of a motorhome, the Quest drives like one, too,” complained Evans.

So we weren’t fans of the Quest’s girth, but it did offer a few advantages. Interior space did feel large compared with at least two of the Quest’s competitors, and trimmings were of good quality and design. We were also impressed with the light, airy feel the Quest had inside, as well as ingress and egress to the rear seats. Unfortunately the actual comfort of those seats — any of them — was also in question, with the headrest supports pushing into occupants’ backs and many passengers unable to get cozy in either the second or third row. “Fails as a minivan with substandard seating,” noted Markus. That said, we were most impressed with the Quest’s powertrain. MT staffers aren’t easily impressed with most CVTs, but the Nissan’s “gearbox” drew praise from nearly everyone for its response and feel, which was more like a conventional automatic. Paired with Nissan’s 3.5-liter V-6, the Quest got up to speed quickly and smoothly at our test venue.

“The Quest has good power — forgot it had a CVT at first. That’s never happened before,” mused Evans. Loh was similarly surprised, stating, “Great engine note, loads more refined than the Dodge.” Still, the Quest’s bloated size led to complaints of wallowing and excessive roll when the road was anything but straight ahead.

In the end, if the Quest’s intended function is to move many people in great comfort, it doesn’t succeed all that well. It also doesn’t move the minivan segment forward, no matter how large its stature. Game over.

On paper, the Versa looks appealing. The least-expensive new car in the U.S., the $11,750 base S model comes with air conditioning and a very large back seat and trunk. The downside: Eventually, you have to drive it. The problem starts with the Versa’s price: Achieving it apparently required Nissan to suck costs out through the wheelwells. Our top-spec SL model drove as if it had no noise/vibration/harshness-deadening material, with the tinny, four-speaker stereo fighting the constant howl of wind and road noise, and the incessantly wailing engine, thanks to the CVT.

The interior materials consist of drab (but undoubtedly low-cost) browns. The white fan control icons disappear in sunlight, and we can’t remember the last time we saw a Bowden cable recirculation slider in a new car. “The hard plastic door panels are so thin they give way when you touch them,” said Theodore. While the rear seat is massive, “the rear seat ‘cushion’ is not,” added Markus, who likened it to a park bench.

The Versa exhibits decent ride quality on the choppy road, but its 15-inch Continental ContiProContact tires give up grip with gleeful eagerness. Even for an economy car, the Versa has “handling even my mother-in-law would find unacceptable,” said Hall. Safety? Informed for Life, an aggregator of crash test scores, ranks the Versa in the worst 10 percent of new vehicles for 2012.

So what does the Versa do right again? Its back seat is large (albeit not very comfortable), and it doesn’t cost much. Wait, scratch that. Adding items like power windows and locks, CVT, Bluetooth, and nav raised the price of our SL tester to $16,320. Option the hatchback (which remains the same car as last year) similarly, and you’re out $20,020. The Versa, then, offers its lone strength only in its least-expensive trim grade. But even then, it’s hard to make an argument for it over a used car. With the Versa, Nissan looks to have aimed for bargain basement. Mission accomplished.

Though the Scion iQ is new to the United States, it’s more familiar to the rest of the world. Other countries have had these microcars for years, and Toyota is just the latest manufacturer to bring this segment to the States. The main issue is whether the U.S. market will accept them.

With a miniscule 1.3-liter 94-horsepower engine, the Scion iQ is the second-least-powerful vehicle in this year’s Car of the Year competition, conceding only to the fully electric Mitsubishi i MiEV, which has less power but more torque.

For simple around-town commuting, this amount of power is adequate, but driving the iQ on anything other than a surface street can be an adventure all its own. On the freeway, this Scion can’t get out of its own way; a manual transmission would help the situation, but not much. The short wheelbase and narrow track make the iQ wander on grooved freeways.

Nor do things get much better if you happen upon a smooth, twisty road. The small dimensions, combined with the high center of gravity, make the Scion a handful if you try to toss it around. It feels unstable under braking, as if you’re going to tip over. In a controlled setting, this can be fun, but not in real-world driving.

Theodore noted, “The exterior styling is cute, the interior is ultramodern, and the materials have a premium look and feel.” One constant knock on the interior, though, was the placement of the seat’s fore and aft adjuster. Harwood said, “If the seat’s going to have a manual adjustment, please put it as a bar under the front of the seat, not on the side, where everyone expects the reclining handle to be.”

Theodore summed up the iQ best: “It’s less dumb than the Smart, but it still doesn’t make the Dean’s List.”

Unfortunately, just like the other microcars we have here, the Scion iQ is great for any place but the U.S.

Scion iQ

BASE PRICE

$15,995

PRICE (as tested)

$15,995

POWER (SAE NET)

94 hp

TORQUE (SAE NET)

89 lb-ft

ACCEL 0-60, MPH

10.8 sec

QUARTER MILE

18.1 sec @ 77.1 mph

BRAKING 60-0, MPH

129 ft

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.9 sec @ 0.55 g (avg)

EPA ECON (CITY/HWY)

36/37 mpg

CONTENDER: SUBARU IMPREZA

By: Todd Lassa

WE LIKE: Strong, updated flat-four and its effect on handling; incremental design improvements.

WE DON’T LIKE: Flat-four saddled with only a CVT or five-speed manual.

Though the new Impreza sheetmetal is much easier on the eyes than the outgoing model’s, it’s no more handsome than that of big siblings Legacy sedan and Outback wagon. “It’s new but doesn’t look it,” Hall said. “The plain-Jane design looks more cheap than functional,” added Evans.

The Impreza lost 164 pounds, and a new 2.0-liter DOHC boxer has replaced its 2.5-liter SOHC boxer. The five-speed manual remains, though a CVT has replaced its four-speed automatic. The car gets up to 36 mpg highway with the CVT, even with the standard all-wheel drive. Problem is, Subaru‘s CVT feels like the power-sapper it is, needs 1.4 more seconds to reach 60 mph than the manual.

Subaru saved weight with redesigned seat frames and a smaller fuel tank and by switching to electronic power steering, the last of which provides a light, numb feel. It sounds like Subaru took some weight out of the glass and insulation, too. The car is noisy, especially at cold start, though it’s exceptionally smooth, stable, and reasonably quiet at autobahn-level highway speeds. The engine’s lower center of gravity lends some natural, inherent handling qualities, and the Impreza takes sharp curves well, even as it’s soft and comfortable on bad roads.

“The hatchback was roly-poly, but well-mannered and surprisingly neutral,” Markus notes. “It’s happy to be thrown into a four-wheel drift, and then use all-wheel drive to pull out of it. Fun.” He adds that the seats offer minimal lateral support. By upping fuel economy while keeping the car basic, Subaru is appealing to the Impreza’s core buyers, only more so. We know there’s a very good car in there.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful to mate the flat-four to a modern six-speed automatic, instead of the CVT?” Hall wondered. Or a direct-injection turbo version of the 2.0-liter, mated to a six-speed manual and making about 270 horsepower. That would be interesting…the next WRX?

WE DON’T LIKE: Opportunity to show up the competition missed. Or dismissed?

The car that spites thousands of enthusiasts daily hasn’t reinvented the wheel — not that reinventing it would help alter the perceptions held by the Camry’s die-hard disparagers. But the seasoned best-seller/all-around rational transportation/whipping boy does tiptoe into Car of the Year with mild touch-ups.

Most of the changes to the four-cylinder, V-6, and hybrid Camrys could be seen as gradual updates that would eventually make their way into the product line, which didn’t help the Camry’s case as the judges did their loops. The competition is looking to lessen Toyota’s clout in the midsize sedan market by stepping up their game. We’re certain the Camry will keep on trucking in the hundreds of thousands of units annually, but its alternatives are getting mighty compelling.

The interior receives new materials and more vibrant colors, but “only some of them work,” noted Lago. Designers tinkered with the steering wheel, and the cabin controls are still functional and easy to use. Lighter vehicle weight and revised final-drive ratios for the standard six-speed automatics helped boost the four- and six-cylinder models’ fuel economy, while the hybrid gets a new 2.5-liter gas engine and increased EPA numbers. Yet, everywhere we looked in our impression-filled pages, there was consensus: The volume four-banger is smooth and suitable for most basic driving needs; the V-6 is pretty quick for the class; and the hybrid is simply a solid player in the green field. In other words, it’s business as usual.

For Car of the Year, we’re not looking for business as usual. Toyota stayed conservative with its new Camry, and that fact rang clearly. Theodore: “Typical Toyota Camry: competent, but not class-leading in any particular area.” Evans: “It’s like polenta. No flavor at all.” You could say the biggest differences between this model and last year’s are fuel economy and the availability of the Entune connectivity system. And for a past COTY winner, that’s not enough.

The Prius family is growing. In the V’s case, growing like it just ate a cookie with the words “Eat Me” on it.

The Prius V occupies the middle ground between minivan and wagon, like the Mazda5. Unlike the 5, the V doesn’t have a third row. It’s more for those “who don’t want to remove the front wheels from their bikes,” said Lassa. It also aims smartly at those customers fed up with SUVs, but still wanting the cargo volume.

Fuel economy drops to a combined 42 mpg, but the V gains 12 cubic feet of cargo space, and it uses that space intelligently. The available 34.3 cubic feet (67.3 with the seats folded) is competitive in the crossover segment, but that second row can slide forward (it also has adjustable backrests). With the second row all the way up, cargo capacity increases to a class-leading 40.2 cubic feet.

The V rides smoothly and has an assortment of cubbies and storage areas. Toyota’s neat mobile phone integration allows drivers to stream applications like Pandora through the stereo. But such electronic cleverness is inconsistent with the V’s eco display: Its graphics are low rent, and driving aids are nearly nonexistent. Other hybrids, like the Ford Fusion, have integrated high-resolution screens offering more information and game-like driving aids, providing fuel-conscious drivers a more engaging experience.

The V isn’t interesting as a hybrid, nor is it fun to drive in the traditional sense. “These ‘Priora’ certainly seem to punish anything more than hypermiling Boy Scout behavior with noisy tire scrub and beeping nannies,” said Markus. Say what you will about eking out fuel economy, but enjoyable handling and high miles per gallon do not have to be mutually exclusive.

For as smart as its packaging may be, the Prius V is unremarkable
from behind the wheel, whatever kind of enthusiast you claim to be.
The family may be growing, but it’s aging, too.

The Yaris got left behind in our first Car of the Year cut, unloved. The five-speed manual and four-speed automatic transmission options and the 106-hp engine all are carryover, though Toyota has engineered up to 38 highway mpg out of it. It’s still a loud, thrashy engine that requires a lot of throttle to get out of its own way.

“It’s a total dog on grades, even in third gear,” Harwood said. “I had to downshift to second to get up the winding track’s hill.” That type of gear-rowing can vary your mileage well below EPA estimates.

Many cars in this segment can be said to have a fun-to-drive element, in that “more fun to drive a slow car fast” manner, abetted by short wheelbases and tight turning circles. Not so the Yaris, even with the right size wheelbase and turning circle. Its turn-in is pretty good, though any fast, tight corner has its body rolling over alarmingly.

“It’s not particularly good-looking,” Theodore noted, “and you can see where corners have been cut in the exterior trim detailing to achieve a low price. The interior is not up to the standards of its competitors.”

“It looks like a chopped and shortened Camry,” bereft of the simple elegance of previous Yaris designs, Hall opines. “There’s more surface excitement per inch than any other car out there.”

It’s a poor value, losing out to similarly priced Accents and Rios on equipment and interior quality, while the Sonic feels like it’s several classes upmarket for a couple thousand dollars more. It’s not even mid-pack among B-cars as a performer, according to Hall. “Yet the people who buy them love them. It’s a car for people who avoid performance.”

A certain four-letter word — cute — must be a dirty one for Volkswagen designers who spent time preparing the new Beetle. (Not the New Beetle; the new Beetle.) Volkswagen’s modern, second-generation interpretation of the original Beetle was designed to be less cute and more masculine, in an attempt to attract male buyers who might otherwise consider a Scion TC, Ford Mustang V-6, or Mini Cooper. It’s styling that distinguishes the VW Beetle from those cars. Even with the 2012 Beetle’s lower roof, the coupe retains an unmistakable look. Colorful trim panels brighten the interior of even the lower-spec models with the 2.5-liter I-5 engine. Also available is Volkswagen’s turbo 200-hp, 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine, with the turbodiesel 2.0-liter unit debuting later. Such a wide powertrain selection is commendable for the segment in which the Beetle now competes: $20,000 to $30,000 sporty coupes.

In performance, the new Beetle doesn’t have big shoes to fill. The last iteration wasn’t known for its sporty responses, and, unfortunately, the same may be true for the second-gen car. That’s not to say dynamics haven’t improved. When judging the 170-hp I-5 car with the six-speed automatic, Reynolds was pleased with its behavior around the figure-eight course: “What I like here is how well you can sense the road and how quickly it responds — worlds better than the previous car.”

The sport-oriented Turbo model was a letdown, thanks to a turbocharger with unacceptable lag. “Dealt with lag on the winding track. I added too much power to compensate, then I ended up carrying too much power into a turn and had to brake harder — or end up braking late,” Harwood said.

Volkswagen’s got potential with the Beetle, but there are too many niggling details for us to consider the iconic car a finalist. We have little doubt the Beetle will sell well for 2012 and 2013. What happens after that depends on how the maker decides to freshen the Beetle’s new, less-cute formula.

Share this article in:

We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments

As part of our ongoing efforts to make MotorTrend.com better, faster, and easier for you to use, we’ve temporarily removed comments as well as the ability to comment. We’re testing and reviewing options to possibly bring comments back. As always, thanks for reading MotorTrend.com.